Missing Indian Seafarer: Centre Tells Supreme Court MEA Is In Continuous Touch With Foreign Authorities

The petitioner's counsel, however, disputed the adequacy of the efforts undertaken by the authorities, contending that search operations had effectively ceased after July 26.

According to the petitioner, despite official claims that extensive search and rescue operations had been carried out, no fresh rescue efforts had been undertaken thereafter.

The counsel also alleged that inaccurate information regarding the case was being circulated in the media by the Union Government.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to entertain arguments relating to media reports.

"We are not concerned with the media. We are concerned with the litigation and the family. Forget about the media; let the media enjoy the misinformation. The Ministry of External Affairs will take care of it," Justice Bagchi observed.

The petitioner further informed the Court that the Romanian authorities were willing to resume search and rescue operations if additional technical information could be provided.

Highlighting the importance of eyewitness testimony, the counsel submitted that the vessel's First Officer, who witnessed the incident and has since returned to India, had not yet been debriefed by the authorities.

"The eyewitness is in India. He is the vessel's First Officer. He has not been debriefed. He can provide information regarding the coordinates, sea currents, sea conditions and explain exactly what transpired," the petitioner's counsel argued.

Taking note of the submissions, CJI Surya Kant briefly remarked: "We will see."

The matter remains pending before the Supreme Court as it considers the status report filed by the Centre and the petitioner's request for further diplomatic intervention and renewed search efforts to trace the missing Indian seafarer.

Gupta's elder brother, Sandeep Kumar Gupta, has approached the supreme court seeking directions to the MEA to coordinate search efforts after repeated representations to the government and Indian missions between July 26 and July 30 allegedly received no response.

Court was told by the petitioner that reports had emerged over the weekend that two persons had been rescued by Romanian authorities. He said that when the petition was filed, reports had stated that two Indians had been rescued, but that news was subsequently taken down. He submitted that international media reports suggested that the two persons reportedly rescued could be the two missing Indian seafarers. However, he said there had been no consular access or contact with them. He also raised an apprehension about possible human trafficking.

The ship was attacked near Ukraine on July 25. There were nine crew members on board, including four Indians. The Indian Embassy in Ukraine subsequently said that two of the four Indian nationals were safe, while information regarding the other two was awaited. Search and rescue operations were undertaken for the missing seafarers.

Last month, the MEA issued an advisory urging Indians considering employment on commercial vessels in the Black Sea region to carefully assess the security risks and remain in contact with Indian missions.

India has also stepped up diplomatic engagement on the safety of its nationals affected by the conflict. In recent months, New Delhi secured the release of 139 Indians recruited into the Russian military and has repeatedly urged citizens to avoid high-risk overseas employment in conflict zones.

Case Title: Sandeep Kumar Gupta v. Union of India

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana

Hearing Date: August 7, 2026